8 comments:

Hello! I found your website. My name is Anders Branderud and I am from Sweden.

Who then was the historical “Jesus”?

Did you know that the original “Matthew” was written in Hebrew and it’s called Hebrew Matityahu. It speaks about an Orthodox Jewish leader..

I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – Mashiakh – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.He was born in Betlehem 7 B.C.E . His faher name was Yoseiph and mother’s name was Mir′ yâm. He had twelve followers. He tought in the Jewish batei-haknesset (synagogues). Thousands of Jews were interested in His Torah-teachings. The “Temple” Sadducees (non-priests who bought their priest-ship in the “Temple” from the Romans, because they were assimilated Hellenist and genealogically non-priests acting as priests in the “Temple”; they were known by most 1st-century Jews as “Wicked Priests.” decided to crucify him. So they did - together with the Romans. His followers were called Netzarim (meaning offshoots [of a olive tree]) and they continued to pray with the other Jews in the synagogues.

Christianity does not teach the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua. Ribi Yehoshuas teachings were pro-Torah.

If you want to learn more click at our website www.netzarim.co.il -- than click at the lick "Christians"; click at my photo to read about what made my switch religion from Christianity to Orthodox Judaism.

The gospel of Matthew was clearly written for a Jewish audience, just as Mark was written for a gentile audience. There is no evidence, however, that the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, rather than koine Greek. Some think it might have been originally written in Aramaic, the primary language of the communities where Jesus and the apostles lived, but that's probably not the case, though there are Aramaic phrases in the gospels. The gospels of Matthew and Mark contain numerous word-for-word identical passages indicating that the author of Matthew copied from the earlier gospel of Mark, and that they likely shared at least one other common source.

It sounds to me like you're a member of a cult, Anders--something like the Jews for Jesus cult here in the United States.

"The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius further documented (EH III.xxvii.4-6) that the original Nәtzarim accepted only the Jewish Tana"kh as Bible and only The Netzarim ("their own") Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) as an authentic account of the life and teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua, never accepting the the 2nd-4th century, heavily gentile-redacted (Greek), NT."

Hello!Thanks for your reply!Why don't you do as Ribi Yehoshuas followers - and rely on the following:

The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius further documented (EH III.xxvii.4-6) that the original Nәtzarim accepted only the Jewish Tana"kh as Bible and only The Netzarim ("their own") Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) as an authentic account of the life and teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua, never accepting the the 2nd-4th century, heavily gentile-redacted (Greek), NT.

Your group appears to have originated in the 20th century. As is common among 20th century religious groups that claim a longer history, there seems to be little or no actual continuity with any previously extant group.

I found this online document about a Hebrew version of Matthew, which says that Eusebius, Papias, Origen, Jerome, and Irenaeus all speak of (and several quote from) a Hebrew version of Matthew, but that the quotations have no relation to the extant Shem Tov version of a Hebrew gospel of Matthew. The claim of some resemblances to Codex Sinaiticus (a 4th century manuscript) is particularly interesting.

In my opinion, though, while this is of interest in reconstructing Christian history, it doesn't lend any support to the *truth* of Christianity, or a Ribi Yehoshua version of Judaism, or the existence of the supernatural.

Jim,You should rely on Scholars instead of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a serious alternative – it is not worth reading. Whoever can write whatever they want.You do misunderstand the origin of the Hebrew term נצרים (Netzarim), because it seems that you are not even doing minimum research at our website which is based on Scholar-sources.

Ëvën Bokhan; The Touchstone (abbreviated EB), the earliest extant complete source text for Hebrew Matityahu, compiled by Sheim-Tov Ben-Yitzkhâq Ben-Shaprut in Spain, for polemical purposes, ca. 1380 C.E.In Bible Review (Winter 1986, p. 15), George Howard – Emeritus Head of the Department of Religion and Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia – argues that EB reflects the ancient Hebrew ms. Top scholars increasingly agree that, just as Eusebius documented, the original version of Matityahu was Hebrew (cf. The Nәtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM), note 1.0.1). EB is, as of this writing, the earliest extant complete Hebrew ms. of Matityahu. Its integrity within the Hebrew-Matityahu tradition remains unresolved (Hellenized to Greek Matthew). (source www.netzarim.co.il; Glossaries (firstpage)

As you see: Top scholars increasingly agree that, just as Eusebius documented, the original version of Matityahu was Hebrew.From Anders BranderudFollower of Ribi Yehoshua - Mashiakh

My last question should have said "Nazirites" instead of "Nazarenes" (e.g., Numbers 6:1-21).

Wikipedia has its flaws, but I disagree that it is "not worth using."

You say that "Top scholars increasingly agree that, just as Eusebius documented, the original version of Matityahu was Hebrew"--what's the evidence that there is increasing support for this view among "top scholars"? Is that your claim, or a claim from the 1986 Howard article you cite?

You're certainly correct that I'm not relying on your website. The advantage of Wikipedia is that it is composed by people with competing views, not a collection of information from people of a single viewpoint.

The source for the information is in the quote I gave you – in NHM.If you reject the information of our website – than you reject the Scholarship of the sources that we quote.Instead you base your information on Wikipedia - information written by anonymous persons.

Regarding Nazir – Now Netzarim have no connection to that term.

Except for that – here I will give you two more sources for information – Oxford historian-scholar James Parker and Prof. Barrie Wilsson.:

As the earliest church historians, most eminent modern university historians, our web site (see further down in this post) and our Khavruta (Distance Learning) texts confirm, the original teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua were not only accepted by most of the Pharisaic Jewish community, he had hoards of Jewish students. Contrary to popular Christian assumptions, the standards of the Jewish community didn't cause the "break." Rather, as Oxford historian-scholar James Parkes indisputedly demonstrates in his book, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, it was the teachings that were perverted between the first and fourth centuries C.E. The first century teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua and his original Netzarim were acceptable in the Jewish community. Fourth century Christianity was the polar opposite to the original first century Pharisaic Torah teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua and his original Netzarim followers. Consequently, the Roman perversion of those teachings was never in the Jewish community at all! Ribi Yәhoshua's authentic teachings were never rejected by the Jews! And the perversion of those teachings by the Roman pagans, Christianity, was never in the Jewish community in the first place. There was no transition between the two! (source: netzarim.co.il)

If you want to learn about the Historical Ribi Yehoshua, whom Orthodox Jews can live with (witness the Netzarim Jews in Raanana, Israel, members in good standing in an Orthodox synagogue), you must start with books like How Jesus Became Christian by Prof. Barrie Wilson (most bookstores) and Who Are The Netzarim? (publ. www.schuellerhouse.com) by Israeli Orthodox Jew, Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David.